Citation Nr: 18155309
Decision Date: 12/04/18	Archive Date: 12/03/18

DOCKET NO. 16-22 857
DATE:	December 4, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from November 1965 to October 1967.  This matter is on appeal of an August 2015 rating decision.  
Following the May 2016 statement of the case (SOC), VA added additional medical evidence to the Veteran’s file after the appeal was certified to the Board in September 2017. 
Pertinent evidence is initially reviewed by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ).  Additional pertinent evidence that becomes available after the RO’s SOC but prior to certification to the Board is to be addressed in an additional supplemental statement of the case (SSOC).  38 C.F.R. § 19.31(b).  After certification to the Board, such evidence must be referred back to the AOJ for initial review.  38 C.F.R. §§ 19.37(b) and 20.1304(c).  Exceptions are when the Veteran or his representative waives this review, or when the Board grants the benefit being sought in full.  Id. 
In this case, the AOJ added pertinent VA treatment records after the case was certified to the Board.  Neither the Veteran nor his representative responded to the Board’s September 2018 letter asking if they wanted to waive initial AOJ review of such evidence.  As such, the Board will assume that they would like to have the AOJ complete such initial review and such should be completed on remand.  
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Obtain and associate with the claims file VA treatment records from December 2017 to the present.
2. After completing the above action, as well as any other development that may be warranted, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim in light of all the evidence of record, including consideration of any evidence added to the record since the May 2016 SOC.  If the benefit on appeal remains denied, a SSOC must be provided to the Veteran and his representative.  After the Veteran and his representative have an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review.  
 
M. SORISIO
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	L. Wells-Green